The judgment in HCPC v Eves [2025] EWHC 1050 (Admin), provides a helpful reminder as to the level of scrutiny and supervision which may be afforded by the court when considering an application to extend an interim order – particularly in a case involving lengthy delay. Within the case, concerns had been raised in relation to the registrant’s clinical competence in 2021 and an interim suspension had been first made in August 2021 (para 2). In dismissing the regulator’s application to extend the interim order, several observations and criticisms were made.

In relation to the seriousness of the allegations, the Court observed:

 “Whilst it is undoubtedly the case that any incident which involves potential risk of harm to a patient does fall well up the scale of seriousness, it has to be said that, in the grand scheme of seriousness of allegations, this is far from the top end of the range” (para 12).

 “I note… [reference] to so-called attitudinal issues on the part of Mr Eves. These appear to amount to the fact that Mr Eves disputes the charges or that they would, if proven, amount to professional misconduct. In my judgment, however, merely defending the charges themselves is not, certainly in this case, a relevant consideration for me to take into account in terms of the question of seriousness of the allegations themselves”. (para 12)

In terms of the seriousness of risk of harm, the Court stated:

 “I…disagree with the assessment of seriousness of risk of harm and consider that the evidence suggests that any risk is much lower than suggested by the Panel” (para 16).

In terms of prejudice, the Court observed the following:

“I find it striking that at no point…did the HCPC seem to acknowledge in any way, shape or form, the inevitable prejudice that dragging on of proceedings of this nature is likely to have upon Mr Eves as an individual and his family”

In terms of delay, the Court observed:

“I find it extremely unsatisfactory that a regulatory body…does not progress issues of reasonable adjustment to allow registrants to take part in proceedings in a timely fashion” (para 17)

The Court concluded that it was “more than satisfied that any risk that the remaining few allegations represent is clearly outweighed by the lengthy delays, the lack of progress of the matter and the significant prejudice which he is now suffering as a result of the ongoing situation” (para 21)

Have you been notified about an interim order hearing? Get in Touch with me Today for Specialist, Affordable Advice.